But Kris: I can only disagree. Sincerity is surely measured in the terms on which you come to debate. Like integrity really.

If you just put up propaganda, post scripture, move the goal posts, don't answer direct questions then eventually we see what this sincerity really means, no? I've followed the last couple of Michael's threads with increasing suspicion about his motives for being here.

He clearly has no intention whatsoever of really engaging in the debates he stirs, but actually just wants the appearance of doing so - while continuing to put up Christian propaganda... I have to wonder why he does that - and I see little reason to think he is "sincere" in anything other than a hidden agenda.

The approach to and method of debate are the problem: they lack integrity and honesty.

I've just been back through the thread Kris. I'm not alone in feeling distinctly queasy at Michael's prevarication and obfuscation. Lots of others seem to assume he has bad motives for these dodgy postings.

So I think it's fine to come here as a Christian and debate with us: we'd enjoy that, if it is honestly done. But surely you need to be prepared to actually debate? Not just post scripture, unsubstantiated and indefensible rhetoric and myth - and then just avoid the direct challenges. We have this constant switch and mix of evidence type language (see the original post) followed by barking lunacy and no answers to the direct points made in rebuttal.

I don't see eccentricity, I see a lack of honesty and integrity: and I'm clearly not alone.

You appear alone to me. What question have I not answered on this thread?

You always post theses stong opinions and type casting me in some general grouping. However this shows that you have not read my message, particularly on my blog post. You will plainly see that I am not the "Christian" that you speak of. I am here to point out the falsehold in Christianity, as known and as practiced.

You are good at grand standing demagoguery, the problem is that it has no bearing in reality. But you would make a great politician

You appear alone to me. What question have I not answered on this thread?

What a shock. Read the thread. All those other people questioning your motives...which are still completely unclear... Do I really have to go through and collect questions (here and on the last thread) that you haven't answered? It's not the individual questions either though: it's the lack of address to issues of principle which are raised by the statements you put out there. Like - what is evidence? What is your method for knowing what is true/un-true? If you're up for engaging with these - great: let's go for it.

I have no idea who you are or what you believe: it's utterly inpenetrable. I have read what I have read of your posts: each one does need to stand alone at some level... I'm not likely to go searching for more on your blog to be honest. Why would I? This is a (painful) public discussion that I'm responding to: if required reading exists elsewhere that needs to be said at the outset perhaps?

And grandstanding demagoguery eh? That's pretty fine stuff. To be accused of having no bearing in reality by someone who posts the stuff you post is irony in it's highest form. But hey ho. I'd make a dreadful politician: I sort of care quite a bit...

Yes you can not demostrate the existence of the supernatural, however I try to attach compelling video clips whenever I can.

One such clip appears in this thread. A non-baryonic being appears to manifest itself at a millitary installation in the orient then simply vanishes. However the cover story refers to it as an alien. I group aliens, ufos and hauntings all in the same category; non-baryonic beings fallen from their respective places throughout the Cosmos, awaiting judgement in Tartarus, i.e. inclose vicinity of the earth, sky,ocean, beneath the ear th and on the Moon..

But it does not explain why you come to an atheist board and post sections from the bible...

I'm here to learn why theism still exists, and how to defend against the worst of it. In fact, I don't see how there would even be any need to advocate for atheism, if theism didn't exist. So I appreciate hearing sincere explanations from theists, no matter how much I disagree with them.

What is stunning, right after posting the essay, that mentions the obelisk in Vatican city and church spires and steeples as a carryover from the the standing images (matzebah) erected in front of the Temple that cause Israel (Judea) to go into captivity. A earthquake strikes toppling one of the spires on the national Cathedral and cracking the dedication stone atop the Washington monument.

You think this is a test for the existence of something/anything????? (I've deleted the less polite bit here : though I would point out that posting this rubbish here appears to be bad faith. Posting scripture to an atheist forum is not the action of someone with integrity).

You talk in evidential terms but seem to have no a clue what evidence is. Why is this not evidence for the existence of my verucca? Words can be written down. But they need to be testable to be evidence for something. Think about what evidence you would require to believe in Osiris. And then apply this same standard to your god.

Evidence is evident Michael. This is mystical rubbish. There is quite a difference. (This conversation is utterly surreal: how can someone who understands enough about evidence to know to leave his 25th floor apartment by the door not the window in the morning, say, think that there is anything here that consitutes a testable hypothesis?)

And again: posting scripture to an Atheist forum is very bad form. Many of us know it quite well already, thanks: many of us find it utterly abhorent in it's profoundly immoral views.

This looks like an attempt to proselytise. Answer honestly please: do you think that scripture has magical properties and that if we all read enough of it we will convert? Why are you here? Please do tell us.